Robert said

Congratulations, you’ve finally abandoned the idea of an intensification of a prior exaggerated and illogical verbal negation in Mk 3,21.

Likewise, Mk 13,15 presents an initial prohibition which is further specified and then the reason for the prohibition is given. And here too  there is no reason to insert a prior illogical idea into the text.  

Well no in both 13:15 and 3:20 we have an initial prohibition which gets added to with a further prohibition and without the initial prohibition being modified.

3:20 implies an unspecified set of negations like “unable to lie down and sleep” or “unable to sit down and discuss which towns theyll go to next”. “unable to eat” justs get added to that unspecified set of initial prohibitions. It doesn’t modify them in any way.

Likewise with 13:15 “don’t enter” just gets added to the previous prohibition without modifying it.

Robert said  

There’s no prohibition at all in Mk 3,20, let alone one that’s modified. And why are you denying that anything is being ‘modified’ in 3,20? I said nothing about anything (let alone a prohibition) being modified in Mk 3,20. Try to understand what I say before you attempt to refute it. What do you not understand about what I’ve said about Mk 3,20?

As for Mk 13,15, is it possible to take anything out if the house without first entering the house? No. Is it possible for someone on the roof to enter the house without first going down from the roof? No. You really don’t you see the logical progression?   

sorry, I thought when you said the below in your previous post you were saying both Mk 13:15 and 3:20 have initial prohibitions? with ‘prohibition’ being used in an analogous sense in 3:20.

“Likewise, Mk 13,15 presents an initial prohibition which is further specified and then the reason for the prohibition is given. And here too  there is no reason to insert a prior illogical idea into the text.” 

anyway there’s no further prohibition specification in 13:15 – the initial prohibition is fully specified and the second prohibition is just additional to it. In 3:20 there’s is an implied/unspecified set of negations which gets some specification added to it with “unable to eat”

Robert said

As for Mk 13,15, is it possible to take anything out if the house without first entering the house? No. Is it possible for someone on the roof to enter the house without first going down from the roof? No. You really don’t you see the logical progression?   

Yes true but his choice of two imperatives means he has to prohibit them separately this way – his choice of two imperatives means he is prohibiting them in precisely the same manner as an author who wants to prohibit them in totality.

Matthew expresses the concept clearly and precisely – Mark with extra words produces something which is at best ambiguous and at worst the exact opposite of what was intended. Taken in isolation the evidence of this verse should point to Matthew being the original and Mark the combination of one authors work on top of another’s.

Robert said
This is exactly the point I made a few posts above. The use of two imperatives grammatically (one word each) requires the use of two negative particles (two additional words); no other way to negate two imperatives, but it is in reality one prohibition in totality. Think if an author had used two positive imperatives. (Go down from the roof) and (go inside) (to get something from the house). One idea with two positive imperatives defined by single purpose clause. The negation is also one idea with both imperatives negated.   

Actually he could have just negated “go inside”. That is “go down from the roof but dont go inside”. Not a very elegant way to put it but necessitated by the use of two imperatives.

Robert said
Mark is actually more precise by delineating both steps of a two-step process required of one who is on a roof and wants to get something in the house. Mark only becomes ambiguous if one focuses too much on one part of a two-step process (literally one word) and tries to separate it from the whole thought. No translation of individual words is complete until it has taken account of a whole sentence (here 52 words), sometimes a whole paragraph, or even a whole work. 

  

Lets compare with Mark 13:16 and Matthew 24:17. Same idea as previous verse where they’re warned ‘not to return to get your cloak”.

Here however they have both used the same construction one imperative and one infinitive (the same infinitive as previously) – itself evidence that the construction of one imperative and one infinitive was the original idea of Mk13:15/Mt 24:17.

But if adding a second imperative to 13:15 makes Mark more precise then the same principle should apply to 13:16 – after all one cant get ones coat simply by returning one must also enter the house to get it. I dont think however anyone would claim two imperatives would make things more precise here – Mark and Matthew didnt think so, – even though a double negative here wouldn’t cause the kind of problems as the double negative in 13:15. (it wouldn’t matter if marks jesus had warned them not to return in totality).

Robert said

Again, there’s no ‘principle’ to be applied as if Mark must use two infinitives. I’m just trying to teach you the grammar of what Mark did write while you flail around trying to find different arguments. Bottom line, if you are at least learning some grammar, you should also admit that what Mark has written is not as incomprehensible as you first claimed.  

The original claim is not that 13:15 is incomprehensible but that it expresses precisely the opposite of what was intended.

I guess just to recap

Original claim is: Mk13:15 is an error and expresses the opposite of Mt 24:17 which is the original version.

Counterclaim is: Mk13:15 is ambiguous or an example of Markan pleonastic style, and Mt 24:17 is a secondary clearing-up of this ambiguity.

Reasons supporting original claim

Mt24:17 clearly expresses a simple idea while Mk13:15 with extra words expresses something which is at best amiguous, suggests a single author creating Mt24:17 and multiple authors for Mk13:15.

The next verse in both Mark and Matthew have the same idea and structure as Matthews version of Mk13:15 – pointing towards the same author for this shared structure and idea in Mt24:17, Mt24:18, Mk13:16 and secondary author for Mk13:15

Had Mark put no negation on “go down” and a single negation on “enter” in 13:15 he would clearly and unambiguously express the idea of fleeing without collecting belongings. Mark’s actual placing of the negation on “go down”, expressing precisely the opposite of what was intended, points to an error and not pleonastic style.